JUDGMENT 1. - Both the criminal appeals were directed against the Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions case No. 71/93, Judgment dated 27.5.94. The accused appellants have been found guilty and convicted U/s. 302 IPC and Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused appellants were sentenced as under:- (i) U/s. 302 read with Section 34 IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 in default to further undergo six months R.I. (ii) U/s. 324 read with Section 34 IPC-to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500 in default to further undergo six months R.I. (iii) U/s. 323 read with Section 34 IPC-to undergo one month R.I. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts are:- (i) On 8.5.93 at about 5.30 P.M., informant Shanker lodged a written report (Ex.P1) with the Police Station Chandbaji (Jaipur) stating therein that in the morning about 8-9 A.M. his mother proceeded for grazing goats. Thereafter his father also proceeded in camel-cart. After sometime the informant also proceeded and when he reached near the field of his uncle Kanha, he found Bhori Lal son of Ladu Meena quarrelling with his mother and father. Bhori Lal was restrained by his mother and father from cutting `teekar-tree' but he cut a branch of the tree. Bhori Lal pushed his mother and inflicted injury on the person of his father, but in the meantime the informant intervened and persuaded his father to go home and he also proceeded towards his house in the camel-cart of Hari Raiger, Sadya, (the elder brother of the informant) and his wife met the informant on the way and they were made known about the incident. The informant got down from camel-cart of Hari Raigar and proceeded towards his house in the camel-cart of his elder brother and bhabhi. When they reached near the field of Bhori; Bhori Lal, Ram Kumar, Sadya and Bhagwan Sahay armed with lathies and Kharvadis, suddenly appeared before them and started `maar-peet'. The informant and his brother Sadya started running towards field of Bhora but they chased them and surrounded them under `teekar-trees'. When they reached near the field of Bhori; Bhori Lal, Ram Kumar, Sadya and Bhagwan Sahay armed with lathies and Kharvadis, suddenly appeared before them and started `maar-peet'. The informant and his brother Sadya started running towards field of Bhora but they chased them and surrounded them under `teekar-trees'. Bhori Lal inflicted lathi blow on the person of his brother, Ram Kumar inflicted Kharvadis blow on the head of his brother and all the four persons started inflicting blows on his person and his brother Sadya, after pushing them on the ground. After hearing hue and cry, persons from nearby places came over there. Galya, Mithya, Kanhaya Lal Meena, Prabhat Khatik etc. had seen this incident. Thereafter the informant and Kanhaya Lal Meena took Sadya to Chandbaji Hospital. (ii) A case U/s. 341, 323/34, 307 IPC was registered against the accused persons and investigation commenced. Injuries sustained by Sadya, Shanker and Bhairoo were medically examined on 8.5.93 at about 6 p.m. Sadya died on 9.5.93 and the case was converted U/s. 302 the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Charge-sheet U/s. 302, 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Dist., Jaipur. (iv) Charges U/s. 302 alternative charge U/s. 302 read with Section 34, 323, 324 read with Section 34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants. They denied charges and claimed trial. (v) The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case and produced 28 documents. Thereafter the statements of accused appellants U/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded. The accused appellants did not examine any witness in support of their defence. (vi) The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused appellants as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. N.C. Chaudhary, the learned counsel, has made only one submission that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence does not travel beyond section 304 Part II IPC. To substantiate, the learned counsel, contended that there was no serious motive for commission of the offence and as per the prosecution case itself prior to the incident there was a petty altercation. To substantiate, the learned counsel, contended that there was no serious motive for commission of the offence and as per the prosecution case itself prior to the incident there was a petty altercation. The appellants had no intention to commit murder of the deceased and they had also no intention to cause the particular injury on the head, by chance one blow landed on the temporal occipital region and resulted in an unfortunate death of the deceased. The learned trial court has not properly considered this aspect while appreciating the evidence. 4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels and examined the record minutely. A look at the FIR and the statements of the witnesses reveals that there was no serious motive behind the incident and it was the oft shoot of altercation which had taken place on a very petty matter. Sadiya (deceased) had sustained following three injuries:- (i) Incised wound 4cm. x 1/2cm.x muscle deep place over medial aspect of palmar aspect of left hand. (ii) Incised wound 2cm. x 1/4 cm.x muscle deep placed over palmar aspect of left hand. (iii) Chop wound 16cm. x 3 cm.x Bone deep placed over right side temporal occipital region. The cause of death according to autopsy report was comma as a result of injury to brain and skull. 6. The prosecution has failed to point out the author of injury No. 3, which caused the death of the deceased. Injuries No. 1 and 2 are simple in nature and on the non vital parts of the body. The facts go to show that the appellants had no intention to cause particular injury on the head. The blow landed on the head by chance and resulted in unfortunate death of the deceased. 7. Injuries No. 1 and 2 are simple in nature and on the non vital parts of the body. The facts go to show that the appellants had no intention to cause particular injury on the head. The blow landed on the head by chance and resulted in unfortunate death of the deceased. 7. In Madhusudan Satpathy v. The State of Orissa (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 474) the Apex Court (dealing with a situation in which deceased sustained Bhala (spear) blow on the right temporal region and other two blows from wooden plank on head and bride of the nose), observed as under: "The High Court convicted these accused under section 304 Part I read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 years R.I. The medical evidence shows that there is only one injury on the head that proved to be fatal. The other injuries were found to be simple. Weapons used also were not deadly. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to hold that the appellants had only knowledge that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death. In this view of the matter we alter the conviction from 304 Part I IPC to one punishable under section 304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentence of each of the appellants from 6 years RI to 3 years R.I." In the instant case also, injury on head of the deceased proved to be fatal and other two injuries are simple in nature and on the left hand. The injuries were the result of an altercation on a petty matter. We are, therefore, of the confirm view that the appellants had only knowledge that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death of the deceased and they can be held guilt under section 304 Part II IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC. 8. Consequently we allow this appeal in part. The conviction and sentences of the appellants under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC are set aside instead each of them is convicted and sentenced under section 304 Part II with the aid of section 34 IPC to undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by each of them. In default to further undergo one year R.I. The fine, if deposited, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by each of them. In default to further undergo one year R.I. The fine, if deposited, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The conviction of the accused appellants under section 324 IPC read with section 34 IPC and under section 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC is maintained. The sentences passed against the accused appellants shall run concurrently.Appeal Partly allowed. *******